NSYNC got it right, for once

This is a sequel to https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/how-christian-bigots-make-the-peace-process-of-israel-and-palestine-impossible/

I have little regard for most pop vocal stars and note that most of them profess to be Christians (at least they mention their faith in God and/or Jesus Christ in the liner notes of their albums). That includes NSYNC, five young boys who were ultra-hot a decade ago. But on one of their albums, “No Strings Attached”, they made a bold statement in one of their songs. Here is the lyrics for it:


“Space Cowboy (Yippie-Yi-Ya)”

Here it comes, millennium
And everybody’s talkin’ bout Jerusalem
Is this the beginning or beginning of the end?
Well, I’ve got other thoughts my friend

See I’ve got my eyes on the skies
The heavenly bodies up high
And if you’re in the mood to take a ride
Then strap on a suit and get inside

If you wanna fly, come and take a ride
Take a space ride with the cowboy, baby
If you wanna fly, come and take a ride
Take a space ride with the cowboy, baby

We don’t need all these prophecies
Telling us what’s a sign, what’s a sign
Cause paranoia ain’t the way to live your life from day to day
So leave your doubts and your fears behind

Don’t be afraid at all
Cause up in outer space there’s no gravity to fall
Put your mind and your body to the test
Cuz up in outer space is like the wild wild west

Boom and never let you try to stop me
Born to fly sky high up to the top see
Nothing to fear, no doubts and no tears
Millennium sound to motivate the future years
And you can either be scared or get prepared
Against all odds I bet you never would’ve dared
To make these moves and take flight like me
To come through for the world prophecy
Space connect to overthrow your interception
Ready or not make it hot
That ain’t no question
Get *N Sync and put your head to the sky
Keep the faith
One love from Left Eye

Continue reading

The bottleneck effect and the Genesis creation myth

According to the creation myths of the Book of Genesis, humankind is descended from two bottleneck or founder events. The first was when man was created as Adam and Eve (and even Eve was created from a tissue sample from Adam). They had thousands of descendants, including Noah, his wife, their three sons and their sons’ wives. All of humanity after the flood depicted in Genesis at Noah’s time are thus said to be descended from five people at most (Noah, his wife and his sons’ wives, assuming none of the sons’ wives were closely related to Noah or his wife). But remember that they were ultimately descended from ONE PERSON, Adam, who lived only a dozen or so generations before them, so even their genetic diversity would have to have been lower than people living today.

The reduction of a population causes a loss of genetic diversity and makes inbreeding more likely, which itself limits genetic diversity among offspring until mutation and natural selection has had time to increase that diversity.




Considering the diversity of humankind today, one would expect that humans evolved very rapidly after the flood, which would make rejection of evolution by believers in the Bible pointless. How is it that fundamentalists can beleive in rapid evolution within “kinds” over thousands of years, yet deny unlimited and slower evolution over many millions of years?

Because they reject science, of course. Dogma is everything to them, and that’s inexcusible in a society that depends on science for almost everything we have.

The dishonesty and ignorance of the Creationists becomes obvious here:


By comparing DNA from different humans around the world, it has been found that all humans share roughly 99.9% of their genetic material—they are almost completely identical, genetically.7 This means that there is very little polymorphism, or variation. Much evidence of this genetic continuity has been found. 8 examined a 729-base pair intron (the DNA in the genome that is not read to make proteins) from a worldwide sample of 38 human males and reported no sequence variation.

These results are quite consistent with a recent human origin and a global flood. Evolutionary models of origins did not predict such low human genetic diversity. Mutations should have produced much more diversity than 0.1% over millions of years. And yet this is exactly what we would expect to find if all humans were closely related and experienced a relatively recent event in which only a few survived.

Bull$#it. If humans were NOT genetically almost identical, they would not be able to interbreed at all and would have already diversified into various species, like humans and chimps did several million years ago. The fossil record shows that species more closely related to us than chimps became extinct long ago and that our species is only a few hundred thousand years old, having evolved from older ones.

We should also seek to understand genetic evidence in the context of the tower of Babel event. 12 This too seems consistent with Biblical events in Genesis 11. Surely, much research is needed to expand ideas about such genetic evidence to determine its consistency with the Bible and its inconsistency with, for example, the various evolutionary out-of-Africa models. 13

When scientists debate issues, they start with the evidence they have and make their different hypotheses fit the evidence, then look for more evidence to rule out competing ideas. They don’t start with a creation myth that can never be ruled out and assume that any evidence must be forced to fit it!

It’s not a whitewash, you denialist bastards!

Remember when I noted the Climategate issue? I first mentioned Isaac Newton and how some of his ideas and actions were highly questionable, but since the ideas he got right proved useful enough, his wrongdoings were overlooked. No one today screams “WHITEWASH!” over that.

It was the e-mail hacker who committed a crime, remember?


Thus we have now seen the depths the denialists will go to attack their targets; most of them are willing to commit crimes and/or condone those crimes committed by others to advance their cause. Yet they have the gall to demand that, on the basis of the stolen e-mails, the writers of the e-mails should by charged with fraud and imprisoned. That is sheer hypocrisy.

And as far as I know, no serious effort has been made to track down and jail whoever pulled that stunt.

Meanwhile, the scientists who were targeted have had to endure hearings on the issue. Their work has been scruntinized and their motives questioned. And the results have been as follows:






So a few stolen e-mails were dissected last year, some statements within them were taken out of context and their meanings distorted and this was supposed to be the big scandal that would bring  down the movement against global warming? Such cherry picking is typical of denialists, but that is not the way science should ever be run. In the end, the climatologists have been let off the hook and allowed to resume their work. Hopefully, reforms will be made to make the process of sharing data more open and transparent, but that must be through legal means.

Climategate is a dead issue now. Let’s bury it and move on!

Scienceblogs listens to reason, not just $$$$$$$$

The uproar over the inclusion of a corporate sponsored blog on scienceblogs resulted in a dozen or so blogs, some of which had been there for years with a sizable readership, jumping ship in disgust. Realizing what they had to lose, the management quickly backpedaled:


We have removed Food Frontiers from SB.

We apologize for what some of you viewed as a violation of your immense trust in ScienceBlogs. Although we (and many of you) believe strongly in the need to engage industry in pursuit of science-driven social change, this was clearly not the right way.

Indeed, I would hope someone got fired over this.

Other responses:












Well done, fellow bloggers! I’m proud of you all!

Scienceblogs has sold out!

Corporate advertising, in the form of ads posted on websites, is one thing. But when corporate shills are allowed to set up and run a blog of their own on a website that is supposed to be about SCIENCE, not corporate advocancy, that just blows my mind!

See for yourself here!




I am absolutely opposed to this crap and I hope there is a massive protest against it by other bloggers at scienceblogs!

Oh, it’s already started:





















Finally, the people running scienceblogs made a statement recognizing how they had blundered, but still tried to justify the presence of the corporate blog itself:


Yesterday, ScienceBlogs launched Food Frontiers, a blog sponsored by PepsiCo. This isn’t the first time we’ve hosted sponsored blogs–recent ones included GE, Shell, and Invitrogen–but it is the first time we’ve received this level of criticism about it.

Frankly, we at ScienceBlogs did not do a good job of communicating what these sponsored blogs are for, give a proper explanation of what our relationship to Food Frontiers was going to be, or even properly explain what Food Frontiers is.

We have blogs from industry because we think it’s important that the story of how and why industry science gets done be part of the conversation at ScienceBlogs. It’s certainly the story of a great many of the world’s engineers, mathematicians, chemists, physicists, and biologists. These scientists necessarily have conflicts of interest, so as a matter of transparency, we’re fixing the way those conflicts are presented, in line with the best practices of scientific journals.


To the owners of scienceblogs, Seed Media Group, I say this: What a stupid thing you have done! You do NOT need corporate money that badly. You only undermine the credibility of your website and your own bloggers that have been here for years. What you need is INTEGRITY! Kill that Pepsi blog and don’t EVER do anything so underhanded again!


I’m from Texas, not Missouri

Take a look at this disgusting blog by anti-evolutionist and anti-Semite Larry Farfarman:


The introduction of it alone is enough to make me barf:

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : “I`m from Missouri — you’ll have to show me.” This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Clearly, this bastard doesn’t know the difference between skepticism and denialism. Among scientists, evolution is not controversial and among historians, the holocaust is not controversial either. It is denialists among the lunatic fringes of society that have problems with such things. Those big babies need to grow up, that’s all.

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs — there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

 In other words, this @$$hat thrives on chaos and insists on his  stupid opinions being held as equally valid with all others without any attempt to sort out truth from falsehood. How can anyone do science with that attitude? And if nothing is to be deleted or closed, what point is there in saying that rude comments are to be “discouraged”? That is meaningless.

Here is a recent episode of Larry’s insanity:


Saturday, June 05, 2010

“Systematic” holocaust would be impossible even with DNA testing! I have long contended that a “systematic” Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable way of identifying Jews and non-Jews. This claim is often pooh-poohed with examples of how supposedly easy it was for the Nazis to objectively and reliably identify Jews. The stories go something like this: Nazis raiding a synagogue find the rabbi there. They torture him, forcing him to reveal the synagogue’s membership list. The Nazis then hunt the members down one by one.
I have speculated about whether the Nazis could have objectively and reliably identified Jews and non-Jews by means of DNA testing, which of course was not a available to them. This study shows that the answer to that question is no.

Clearly, this fucked up moron never lived among Jews, never studied how the Jewish religion is practiced, and thus thinks that Jewish people can be identified only by their DNA and nothing else. He would have failed Anthopology 101.

Need I say more?